The aim of this paper is to show that Karl Marx’s critique of political economy can be interpreted as a critique of what philosophers have termed “category-mistakes”. Therefore, I first turn to the origins of this term in Gilbert Ryle’s “Categories”, to further developments in “Philosophical Arguments” and in P. F. Strawson, as well as to W. H. Walsh’s approach to categories, to establish a workable meaning of the term “category-mistake”. In the second part, I briefly discuss some of the (...) previous uses of this term in exegeses of Marx. Based on Marx’s writings and D. Sayer’s work on Marx’s methodology, I then explicate the meaning of Marx’s term “economic category”. Finally, I arrive at an interpretation of Marx’s critique of economic theories as an analysis concerned with the improper use of theoretical concepts. By way of conclusion, I offer some general remarks on one important aspect of critique in Marx and in social science in general. (shrink)

It is a widespread view that Marx did not apply dialectics to nature, and that Engels’s writings on this subject are a distortion of his outlook. This paper examines Marx’s discussion of elliptical motion and some other physical phenomena, and shows that he did indeed find contradictions and oppositions in nature, and thus recognised a dialectics of nature. In addition to analysing relevant passages in Marx’s texts, his study of the physics and mathematics of elliptical motion is reviewed and compared (...) with Hegel’s position. Marx’s conception of how dialectical contradictions are resolved is reviewed in order to interpret his claim that the contradiction in elliptical motion is ‘solved’ but not ‘overcome’ by that motion. Textual evidence is presented that Marx regarded ‘real contradictions’ as resolved only by ‘development’, a process in which the conflict between the opposing sides of the contradiction becomes more intense. The consequences of this interpretation for Marx’s analysis of elliptical motion are explored, and some alternative interpretations are discussed. (shrink)

This article aims to contribute to the literature on Marx’s systematic-dialectical method through a critical reading and discussion of the significance and presentational ‘architecture’ of the section on commodity fetishism in the dialectical sequence of form-determinations inCapital. In order to undertake this task, the paper firstly explores the content and expositional structure of the first three sections of Chapter 1 ofCapital. This sets the stage for a methodologically-minded close examination of Marx’s presentation of the fetish character of the commodity, which (...) shows that there is a precise systematic sequence which gives unity to the flow of his argument within the section on ‘The Fetishism of the Commodity and its Secret’. The conclusion is that only through a proper grasp of the dialectical method can the full systematic significance and implications of Marx’s account of commodity fetishism be uncovered. (shrink)

The introduction of the concept of capital inCapital– with the words ‘we find’ – has provoked a great deal of discussion about the precise relation between the categories of simple circulation and the concept of capital. In this article, I argue that Marx derives the concept of capital by way of an analysis of the immanent contradictions of money, and that this dialectical derivation can be understood as a conceptual movement in which the concepts of money and capital progressively change (...) their modal status. Furthermore, I examine the development of this transition to capital throughout Marx’s writings from the period 1857 to 1872, arguing that the same arguments can be found in all the relevant writings. Finally, the article provides a critical review of the literature on the transition to capital. (shrink)

Chris Arthur‟s body of work counts as a very important and original contribution to systematic dialectics, and I have profited immensely from his writings over the years. However we disagree on a number of points. Some have to do with the relatively secondary question of the intellectual relationship between Hegel and Marx; others involve more substantive matters. In his reply to my review of Joseph McCarney‟s Hegel on History Arthur distinguishes three different versions of the thesis that there is a (...) “homology” between the logic of capital (in a Marxian understanding of it) and Hegel‟s “idea.” I shall comment briefly on each and then conclude with a general remark. (shrink)

Os empreendimentos intelectuais de Hegel e Marx continuam relevantes para um exame do mundo contemporâneo. Ambos os autores analisaram, ainda que a partir de diferentes abordagens, elementos importantes das sociedades capitalistas modernas. Traçar as conexões precisas entre os dois pensadores, no entanto, ainda é um desafio—muito embora atualmente seja claro que essas relações não são de idealismo versus materialismo, mas, que envolvem, precisamente, a superação desse dualismo, conforme mostraram as tradições do Marxismo Ocidental e da Teoria Crítica. Em sua versão (...) anglófona, essas investigações cresceram e se expandiram em diferentes tendências, entre essas, notadamente, a Nova Dialética. Este artigo tem como objetivo analisar a teoria hegeliana do silogismo como chave para a leitura de O Capital de Marx, tal como proposto por Tony Smith. Para isso, o artigo procura reconstruir a interpretação que Smith oferece da teoria hegeliana do silogismo e suas aplicações para a Filosofia do Direito de Hegel, bem como para O Capital de Marx. De acordo com Smith, O Capital, a apresentação das articulações dialéticas das categorias da economia política no modo de produção capitalista como ordem social específica, deriva sua capacidade crítica e sua coerência científica precisamente do recurso à teoria do silogismo hegeliana—que permite a Marx analisar os processos do mundo social como entidades orgânicas constituídas pela articulação de momentos de universalidade, particularidade e individualidade. O resultado é uma investigação que busca aproximar a Lógica de Hegel a O Capital. (shrink)